The '62 is a tiny gun....

Ugly Sauce said:

Didn't realize until yesterday when I was working on the pistol, that it has tiny "windows" on the cylinder, of which my nipple wrench would not fit.

Click to expand...

Ugly Sauce said:

View attachment 968295
Since the wife bought a puppy, I bought a Uberti '62, and still got in trouble, and the '62 didn't cost anywhere near, not even close, to the price of a puppy. Go figure.

This thing is miniscule. The '60 totally dwarfs it. !!!

There it is next to my 1860, I didn't realize how small the '62 is. Not complaining, I wanted a much lighter .36 for times when I'm trying to minimize weight, and don't really need the power of the 1860 or the Remington Navy. Kind of like when you might carry a .22LR, instead of the .357. And, I don't think a hungry and bold wolf will like getting shot with it. That's the plan anyhow, as long as she proves to be small-game capable. To my mind, that's a tight group at 15 yards, or hitting a pop can at that distance consistently. When in the woods, that's the average distance that I see grouse or rabbits on the ground.

It sure is a beautiful pistola, with the 1860 type barrel, and the heavily fluted cylinder. Hardly any visible markings on it. She's very pretty. And tiny. Can't get over how small it is, have never handled one before. I may call it "Mighty Mite" if she proves worthy.

Click to expand...

grter said:

Absolutely stunning.

There are some people who really dislike this gun. I really don't know why. These things are a gem when they are in working order.

The one I handled, a current production model had timing problems and a loose wedge as well as cylinder binding against the forcing cone when the wedge was pushed all the way in. The fit of the arbor and cylinder was a little more loose than other cap and ball guns but in my opinion still within acceptable tolerances. The timing problems most likely was fixed by shortening the hand a small bit with a file, but in order to fix the loose wedge and cylinder binding problem, the arbor needed bottoming out after which all the problems went away and everything improved. A little work was done on the hammer mounted locking latch cam and the leg of the locking latch to smooth things out a little more. Now it all looks, works, and feels normal.

Fixing the arbor first before moving on to anything else is in my opinion the way to go. I have not fired it so I can't comment on whether it's prone to cap jams or not.

I think these represent Colt's vision of what his goals were in making cap and ball revolvers. That was to make a small, lightweight, practical and useful revolver. I would guess due to the booming sales of his earlier anemic pocket .31 that the boat anchor guns were not the first choice of most people.

Click to expand...

Ugly Sauce said:

Thanks!

Well one thing I've noticed on both my Uberti Remington, and this 1862, is that they have very nice rifling, and the forcing cones are very nice. I've seen forcing cones on revolvers, both cartridge guns and cap-n-ball, that look like they hit it quickly with a router bit, or carved it out with a pocket knife. Very rough, and steep. The '62 I have really has a nice forcing cone, very clean, and looks like a very gentle angle to it. They both have nice deep rifling, although my 1860, an old ASA/Euroarms gun, has very shallow rifling, but is nice and accurate. Still, I like to see the deep rifling of the Uberti's.

You know, for so many years, 4fg was like "taboo" or bad ju-ju to use for anything but priming. It would blow your face off, it was often stated. But any evidence of that never surfaced, as far as I know. And, over the years I've "discovered" more people who use 4fg, but don't really admit it often. I've kind of come to believe that 4fg is what was known as, or referred to as "fine pistol powder", and I think it works great, in a pistol. I'm getting good accuracy, and super-clean burning, so I'm pretty much switching to 4fg for my revolvers. My .50" Plains Pistol I'll stick with 3fg.

Click to expand...

sigwally said:

The performance of 4f seems worth investigating. I will buy a pound of it next time. Would full power loads in my 1862 Police with 4f Goex be excessive for the smaller frame??

Click to expand...

Ugly Sauce said:

Thanks!

Well one thing I've noticed on both my Uberti Remington, and this 1862, is that they have very nice rifling, and the forcing cones are very nice. I've seen forcing cones on revolvers, both cartridge guns and cap-n-ball, that look like they hit it quickly with a router bit, or carved it out with a pocket knife. Very rough, and steep. The '62 I have really has a nice forcing cone, very clean, and looks like a very gentle angle to it. They both have nice deep rifling, although my 1860, an old ASA/Euroarms gun, has very shallow rifling, but is nice and accurate. Still, I like to see the deep rifling of the Uberti's.

You know, for so many years, 4fg was like "taboo" or bad ju-ju to use for anything but priming. It would blow your face off, it was often stated. But any evidence of that never surfaced, as far as I know. And, over the years I've "discovered" more people who use 4fg, but don't really admit it often. I've kind of come to believe that 4fg is what was known as, or referred to as "fine pistol powder", and I think it works great, in a pistol. I'm getting good accuracy, and super-clean burning, so I'm pretty much switching to 4fg for my revolvers. My .50" Plains Pistol I'll stick with 3fg.

Click to expand...